Page 1 of 6

As we see it, the proviso was intended neither to impose a

G.R. Nos. L-58674-77 July 11, 1990
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
vs.
HON. DOMINGO PANIS, Presiding Judge of the Court of First
Instance of Zambales & Olongapo City, Branch III and SERAPIO
ABUG, respondents.
condition on the basic rule nor to provide an exception thereto
but merely to create a presumption. The presumption is that the
individual or entity is engaged in recruitment and placement
whenever he or it is dealing with two or more persons to whom,
in consideration of a fee, an offer or promise of employment is
made in the course of the "canvassing, enlisting, contracting,
transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring (of) workers. "

The number of persons dealt with is not an essential ingredient of

the act of recruitment and placement of workers. Any of the acts
CRUZ, J: mentioned in the basic rule in Article 13(b) win constitute
recruitment and placement even if only one prospective worker is
The basic issue in this case is the correct interpretation of Article involved. The proviso merely lays down a rule of evidence that
13(b) of P.D. 442, otherwise known as the Labor Code, reading as where a fee is collected in consideration of a promise or offer of
follows: employment to two or more prospective workers, the individual
or entity dealing with them shall be deemed to be engaged in the
act of recruitment and placement. The words "shall be deemed"
(b) Recruitment and placement' refers to any act of canvassing,
create that presumption.
enlisting, contracting, transporting, hiring, or procuring workers,
and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising
for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not: This is not unlike the presumption in article 217 of the Revised
Provided, That any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or Penal Code, for example, regarding the failure of a public officer to
promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be produce upon lawful demand funds or property entrusted to his
deemed engaged in recruitment and placement. custody. Such failure shall be prima facie evidence that he has put
them to personal use; in other words, he shall be deemed to have
malversed such funds or property. In the instant case, the word
Four informations were filed on January 9, 1981, in the Court of
"shall be deemed" should by the same token be given the force of
First Instance of Zambales and Olongapo City alleging that Serapio
a disputable presumption or of prima facie evidence of engaging
Abug, private respondent herein, "without first securing a license
in recruitment and placement. (Klepp vs. Odin Tp., McHenry
from the Ministry of Labor as a holder of authority to operate a
County 40 ND N.W. 313, 314.)
fee-charging employment agency, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and criminally operate a private fee charging
employment agency by charging fees and expenses (from) and It is unfortunate that we can only speculate on the meaning of the
promising employment in Saudi Arabia" to four separate questioned provision for lack of records of debates and
individuals named therein, in violation of Article 16 in relation to deliberations that would otherwise have been available if the
Article 39 of the Labor Code. 1 Labor Code had been enacted as a statute rather than a
presidential decree. The trouble with presidential decrees is that
they could be, and sometimes were, issued without previous
Abug filed a motion to quash on the ground that the informations
public discussion or consultation, the promulgator heeding only
did not charge an offense because he was accused of illegally
his own counsel or those of his close advisers in their lofty
recruiting only one person in each of the four informations. Under
pinnacle of power. The not infrequent results are rejection,
the proviso in Article 13(b), he claimed, there would be illegal
intentional or not, of the interest of the greater number and, as in
recruitment only "whenever two or more persons are in any
the instant case, certain esoteric provisions that one cannot read
manner promised or offered any employment for a fee. " 2
against the background facts usually reported in the legislative
journals.
Denied at first, the motion was reconsidered and finally granted in
the Orders of the trial court dated June 24 and September 17,
At any rate, the interpretation here adopted should give more
1981. The prosecution is now before us on certiorari. 3
force to the campaign against illegal recruitment and placement,
which has victimized many Filipino workers seeking a better life in
The posture of the petitioner is that the private respondent is
a foreign land, and investing hard- earned savings or even
being prosecuted under Article 39 in relation to Article 16 of the
borrowed funds in pursuit of their dream, only to be awakened to
Labor Code; hence, Article 13(b) is not applicable. However, as the
the reality of a cynical deception at the hands of theirown
first two cited articles penalize acts of recruitment and placement
countrymen.
without proper authority, which is the charge embodied in the
informations, application of the definition of recruitment and
WHEREFORE, the Orders of June 24, 1981, and September 17,
placement in Article 13(b) is unavoidable.
1981, are set aside and the four informations against the private
respondent reinstated. No costs.
The view of the private respondents is that to constitute
recruitment and placement, all the acts mentioned in this article
SO ORDERED.
should involve dealings with two or mre persons as an
indispensable requirement. On the other hand, the petitioner
argues that the requirement of two or more persons is imposed
only where the recruitment and placement consists of an offer or
promise of employment to such persons and always in
consideration of a fee. The other acts mentioned in the body of
the article may involve even only one person and are not
necessarily for profit.

Neither interpretation is acceptable. We fail to see why the

proviso should speak only of an offer or promise of employment if
the purpose was to apply the requirement of two or more persons
to all the acts mentioned in the basic rule. For its part, the
petitioner does not explain why dealings with two or more
persons are needed where the recruitment and placement
consists of an offer or promise of employment but not when it is
done through "canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting,
utilizing, hiring or procuring (of) workers.
[1] Recruitment LABOR 1

G.R. No. 113161 August 29, 1995
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
LOMA GOCE y OLALIA, DAN GOCE and NELLY D. AGUSTIN,
accused. NELLY D. AGUSTIN, accused-appellant
REGALADO, J.
On January 12, 1988, an information for illegal recruitment
committed by a syndicate and in large scale, punishable under
Articles 38 and 39 of the Labor Code (Presidential Decree No. 442)
as amended by Section 1(b) of Presidential Decree No. 2018, was
filed against spouses Dan and Loma Goce and herein accused-
appellant Nelly Agustin in the Regional Trial Court of Manila,
Branch 5, alleging —
That in or about and during the period comprised between May
1986 and June 25, 1987, both dates inclusive, in the City of
Manila, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and
confederating together and helping one another, representing
themselves to have the capacity to contract, enlist and transport
Filipino workers for employment abroad, did then and there
willfully and unlawfully, for a fee, recruit and promise
employment/job placement abroad, to (1) Rolando Dalida y
Piernas, (2) Ernesto Alvarez y Lubangco, (3) Rogelio Salado y
Savillo, (4) Ramona Salado y Alvarez, (5) Dionisio Masaya y de
Guzman, (6) Dave Rivera y de Leon, (7) Lorenzo Alvarez y Velayo,
and (8) Nelson Trinidad y Santos, without first having secured the
required license or authority from the Department of Labor.1
On January 21, 1987, a warrant of arrest was issued against the
three accused but not one of them was arrested. 2 Hence, on
February 2, 1989, the trial court ordered the case archived but it
issued a standing warrant of arrest against the accused.3
Thereafter, on learning of the whereabouts of the accused, one of
the offended parties, Rogelio Salado, requested on March 17,
1989 for a copy of the warrant of arrest.4 Eventually, at around
midday of February 26, 1993, Nelly Agustin was apprehended by
the Parañaque police.5 On March 8, 1993, her counsel filed a
motion to revive the case and requested that it be set for hearing
"for purposes of due process and for the accused to immediately
have her day in court" 6 Thus, on April 15, 1993, the trial court
reinstated the case and set the arraignment for May 3, 1993,7 on
which date of Agustin pleaded not guilty8 and the case
subsequently went to trial.
Four of the complainants testified for the prosecution. Rogelio
Salado was the first to take the witness stand and he declared that
sometime in March or April, 1987, he was introduced by Lorenzo
Alvarez, his brother-in-law and a co-applicant, to Nelly Agustin in
the latter's residence at Factor, Dongalo, Parañaque, Metro
Manila. Representing herself as the manager of the Clover
Placement Agency, Agustin showed him a job order as proof that
he could readily be deployed for overseas employment. Salado
learned that he had to pay P5,000.00 as processing fee, which
amount he gave sometime in April or May of the same year. He
was issued the corresponding receipt.9
Also in April or May, 1987, Salado, accompanied by five other
applicants who were his relatives, went to the office of the
placement agency at Nakpil Street, Ermita, Manila where he saw
Agustin and met the spouses Dan and Loma Goce, owners of the
agency. He submitted his bio-data and learned from Loma Goce
that he had to give P12,000.00, instead of the original amount of
P5,000.00 for the placement fee. Although surprised at the new
and higher sum, they subsequently agreed as long as there was an
assurance that they could leave for abroad.10
Thereafter, a receipt was issued in the name of the Clover
Placement Agency showing that Salado and his aforesaid co-
applicants each paid P2,000.00, instead of the P5,000.00 which
each of them actually paid. Several months passed but Salado
[1] Recruitment
Page 2 of 6
failed to leave for the promised overseas employment. Hence, in
October, 1987, along with the other recruits, he decided to go to
the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) to
verify the real status of Clover Placement Agency. They discovered
that said agency was not duly licensed to recruit job applicants.
Later, upon learning that Agustin had been arrested, Salado
decided to see her and to demand the return of the money he had
paid, but Agustin could only give him P500.00. 11
Ramona Salado, the wife of Rogelio Salado, came to know through
her brother, Lorenzo Alvarez, about Nelly Agustin. Accompanied
by her husband, Rogelio, Ramona went to see Agustin at the
latter's residence. Agustin persuaded her to apply as a
cutter/sewer in Oman so that she could join her husband.
Encouraged by Agustin's promise that she and her husband could
live together while working in Oman, she instructed her husband
to give Agustin P2,000.00 for each of them as placement fee, or
the total sum of P4,000.00. 12
Much later, the Salado couple received a telegram from the
placement agency requiring them to report to its office because
the "NOC" (visa) had allegedly arrived. Again, around February, or
March, 1987, Rogelio gave P2,000.00 as payment for his and his
wife's passports. Despite follow-up of their papers twice a week
from February to June, 1987, he and his wife failed to leave for
abroad. 13
Complainant Dionisio Masaya, accompanied by his brother-in-law,
Aquiles Ortega, applied for a job in Oman with the Clover
Placement Agency at Parañaque, the agency's former office
address. There, Masaya met Nelly Agustin, who introduced herself
as the manager of the agency, and the Goce spouses, Dan and
Loma, as well as the latter's daughter. He submitted several
pertinent documents, such as his bio-data and school credentials.
14
In May, 1986, Masaya gave Dan Goce P1,900.00 as an initial
downpayment for the placement fee, and in September of that
same year, he gave an additional P10,000.00. He was issued
receipts for said amounts and was advised to go to the placement
office once in a while to follow up his application, which he
faithfully did. Much to his dismay and chagrin, he failed to leave
for abroad as promised. Accordingly, he was forced to demand
that his money be refunded but Loma Goce could give him back
only P4,000.00 in installments. 15
As the prosecution's fourth and last witness, Ernesto Alvarez took
the witness stand on June 7, 1993. He testified that in February,
1987, he met appellant Agustin through his cousin, Larry Alvarez,
at her residence in Parañaque. She informed him that "madalas
siyang nagpapalakad sa Oman" and offered him a job as an
ambulance driver at the Royal Hospital in Oman with a monthly
salary of about $600.00 to $700.00. 16
On March 10, 1987, Alvarez gave an initial amount of P3,000.00 as
processing fee to Agustin at the latter's residence. In the same
month, he gave another P3,000.00, this time in the office of the
placement agency. Agustin assured him that he could leave for
abroad before the end of 1987. He returned several times to the
placement agency's office to follow up his application but to no
avail. Frustrated, he demanded the return of the money he had
paid, but Agustin could only give back P500.00. Thereafter, he
looked for Agustin about eight times, but he could no longer find
her. 17
Only herein appellant Agustin testified for the defense. She
asserted that Dan and Loma Goce were her neighbors at Tambo,
Parañaque and that they were licensed recruiters and owners of
the Clover Placement Agency. Previously, the Goce couple was
able to send her son, Reynaldo Agustin, to Saudi Arabia. Agustin
met the aforementioned complainants through Lorenzo Alvarez
who requested her to introduce them to the Goce couple, to
which request she acceded. 18
Denying any participation in the illegal recruitment and
maintaining that the recruitment was perpetrated only by the
LABOR 1

Goce couple, Agustin denied any knowledge of the receipts
presented by the prosecution. She insisted that the complainants
included her in the complaint thinking that this would compel her
to reveal the whereabouts of the Goce spouses. She failed to do
so because in truth, so she claims, she does not know the present
address of the couple. All she knew was that they had left their
residence in 1987. 19
Although she admitted having given P500.00 each to Rogelio
Salado and Alvarez, she explained that it was entirely for different
reasons. Salado had supposedly asked for a loan, while Alvarez
needed money because he was sick at that time. 20
On November 19, 1993, the trial court rendered judgment finding
herein appellant guilty as a principal in the crime of illegal
recruitment in large scale, and sentencing her to serve the penalty
of life imprisonment, as well as to pay a fine of P100,000.00. 21
In her present appeal, appellant Agustin raises the following
arguments: (1) her act of introducing complainants to the Goce
couple does not fall within the meaning of illegal recruitment and
placement under Article 13(b) in relation to Article 34 of the Labor
Code; (2) there is no proof of conspiracy to commit illegal
recruitment among appellant and the Goce spouses; and (3) there
is no proof that appellant offered or promised overseas
employment to the complainants. 22 These three arguments
being interrelated, they will be discussed together.
Herein appellant is accused of violating Articles 38 and 39 of the
Labor Code. Article 38 of the Labor Code, as amended by
Presidential Decree No. 2018, provides that any recruitment
activity, including the prohibited practices enumerated in Article
34 of said Code, undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of
authority shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39
thereof. The same article further provides that illegal recruitment
shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage if any
of these qualifying circumstances exist, namely, (a) when illegal
recruitment is committed by a syndicate, i.e., if it is carried out by
a group of three or more persons conspiring and/or confederating
with one another; or (b) when illegal recruitment is committed in
large scale, i.e., if it is committed against three or more persons
individually or as a group.
At the outset, it should be made clear that all the accused in this
case were not authorized to engage in any recruitment activity, as
evidenced by a certification issued by Cecilia E. Curso, Chief of the
Licensing and Regulation Office of the Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration, on November 10, 1987. Said
certification states that Dan and Loma Goce and Nelly Agustin are
neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas
employment. 23 Appellant does not dispute this. As a matter of
fact her counsel agreed to stipulate that she was neither licensed
nor authorized to recruit applicants for overseas employment.
Appellant, however, denies that she was in any way guilty of illegal
recruitment. 24
It is appellant's defensive theory that all she did was to introduce
complainants to the Goce spouses. Being a neighbor of said
couple, and owing to the fact that her son's overseas job
application was processed and facilitated by them, the
complainants asked her to introduce them to said spouses.
Allegedly out of the goodness of her heart, she complied with
their request. Such an act, appellant argues, does not fall within
the meaning of "referral" under the Labor Code to make her liable
for illegal recruitment.
Under said Code, recruitment and placement refers to any act of
canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or
procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services,
promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad,
whether for profit or not; provided, that any person or entity
which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to
two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and
placement. 25 On the other hand, referral is the act of passing
along or forwarding of an applicant for employment after an initial
[1] Recruitment
Page 3 of 6
interview of a selected applicant for employment to a selected
employer, placement officer or bureau. 26
Hence, the inevitable query is whether or not appellant Agustin
merely introduced complainants to the Goce couple or her actions
went beyond that. The testimonial evidence hereon show that she
indeed further committed acts constitutive of illegal recruitment.
All four prosecution witnesses testified that it was Agustin whom
they initially approached regarding their plans of working
overseas. It was from her that they learned about the fees they
had to pay, as well as the papers that they had to submit. It was
after they had talked to her that they met the accused spouses
who owned the placement agency.
As correctly held by the trial court, being an employee of the
Goces, it was therefore logical for appellant to introduce the
applicants to said spouses, they being the owners of the agency.
As such, appellant was actually making referrals to the agency of
which she was a part. She was therefore engaging in recruitment
activity. 27
Despite Agustin's pretensions that she was but a neighbor of the
Goce couple, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses paint a
different picture. Rogelio Salado and Dionisio Masaya testified that
appellant represented herself as the manager of the Clover
Placement Agency. Ramona Salado was offered a job as a
cutter/sewer by Agustin the first time they met, while Ernesto
Alvarez remembered that when he first met Agustin, the latter
represented herself as "nagpapaalis papunta sa Oman." 28
Indeed, Agustin played a pivotal role in the operations of the
recruitment agency, working together with the Goce couple.
There is illegal recruitment when one gives the impression of
having the ability to send a worker abroad." 29 It is undisputed
that appellant gave complainants the distinct impression that she
had the power or ability to send people abroad for work such that
the latter were convinced to give her the money she demanded in
order to be so employed. 30
It cannot be denied that Agustin received from complainants
various sums for purpose of their applications. Her act of
collecting from each of the complainants payment for their
respective passports, training fees, placement fees, medical tests
and other sundry expenses unquestionably constitutes an act of
recruitment within the meaning of the law. In fact, appellant
demanded and received from complainants amounts beyond the
allowable limit of P5,000.00 under government regulations. It is
true that the mere act of a cashier in receiving money far
exceeding the amount allowed by law was not considered per se
as "recruitment and placement" in contemplation of law, but that
was because the recipient had no other participation in the
transactions and did not conspire with her co-accused in
defrauding the victims. 31 That is not the case here.
Appellant further argues that "there is no evidence of receipts of
collections/payments from complainants to appellant." On the
contrary, xerox copies of said receipts/vouchers were presented
by the prosecution. For instance, a cash voucher marked as Exhibit
D, 32 showing the receipt of P10,000.00 for placement fee and
duly signed by appellant, was presented by the prosecution.
Another receipt, identified as Exhibit E, 33 was issued and signed
by appellant on February 5, 1987 to acknowledge receipt of
P4,000.00 from Rogelio and Ramona Salado for "processing of
documents for Oman." Still another receipt dated March 10, 1987
and presented in evidence as Exhibit F, shows that appellant
received from Ernesto Alvarez P2,000.00 for "processing of
documents for Oman." 34
Apparently, the original copies of said receipts/vouchers were lost,
hence only xerox copies thereof were presented and which, under
the circumstances, were admissible in evidence. When the original
writing has been lost or destroyed or cannot be produced in court,
upon proof of its execution and loss or destruction, or
unavailability, its contents may be proved by a copy or a recital of
its contents in some authentic document, or by the recollection of
witnesses. 35
LABOR 1
 Page 4 of 6

Even assuming arguendo that the xerox copies presented by the

prosecution as secondary evidence are not allowable in court, still
the absence thereof does not warrant the acquittal of appellant.
In People vs. Comia, 36 where this particular issue was involved,
the Court held that the complainants' failure to ask for receipts for
the fees they paid to the accused therein, as well as their
consequent failure to present receipts before the trial court as
proof of the said payments, is not fatal to their case. The
complainants duly proved by their respective testimonies that said
accused was involved in the entire recruitment process. Their
testimonies in this regard, being clear and positive, were declared
sufficient to establish that factum probandum.

Indeed, the trial court was justified and correct in accepting the
version of the prosecution witnesses, their statements being
positive and affirmative in nature. This is more worthy of credit
than the mere uncorroborated and self-serving denials of
appellant. The lame defense consisting of such bare denials by
appellant cannot overcome the evidence presented by the
prosecution proving her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 37

The presence of documentary evidence notwithstanding, this case

essentially involves the credibility of witnesses which is best left to
the judgment of the trial court, in the absence of abuse of
discretion therein. The findings of fact of a trial court, arrived at
only after a hearing and evaluation of what can usually be
expected to be conflicting testimonies of witnesses, certainly
deserve respect by an appellate court. 38 Generally, the findings
of fact of the trial court on the matter of credibility of witnesses
will not be disturbed on appeal. 39

In a last-ditch effort to exculpate herself from conviction, appellant

argues that there is no proof of conspiracy between her and the
Goce couple as to make her liable for illegal recruitment. We do
not agree. The evidence presented by the prosecution clearly
establish that appellant confabulated with the Goces in their plan
to deceive the complainants. Although said accused couple have
not been tried and convicted, nonetheless there is sufficient basis
for appellant's conviction as discussed above.

In People vs. Sendon, 40 we held that the non-prosecution of

another suspect therein provided no ground for the appellant
concerned to fault the decision of the trial court convicting her.
The prosecution of other persons, equally or more culpable than
herein appellant, may come later after their true identities and
addresses shall have been ascertained and said malefactors duly
taken into custody. We see no reason why the same doctrinal rule
and course of procedure should not apply in this case.

WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment of the court a quo is hereby

AFFIRMED in toto, with costs against accused-appellant Nelly D.
Agustin.

SO ORDERED.

[1] Recruitment LABOR 1


[G.R. No. 125044. July 13, 1998]
IMELDA DARVIN, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
DECISION
ROMERO, J.:
Before us is a petition for review of the decision of the Court of
Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CR. No. 15624 dated January 31, 1996,
[1]
which affirmed in toto the judgment of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 19, Bacoor, Cavite, convicting accused-appellant, Imelda
Darvin for simple illegal recruitment under Article 38 and Article
39, in relation to Article 13 (b) and (c), of the Labor Code, as
amended.
Accused-appellant was charged under the following information:
That on or about the 13th day of April 1992, in the Municipality of
Bacoor, Province of Cavite, Philippines and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, through
fraudulent representation to one Macaria Toledo to the effect that
she has the authority to recruit workers and employees for abroad
and can facilitate the necessary papers in connection thereof, did,
then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, hire, recruit
and promise a job abroad to one Macaria Toledo, without first
securing the necessary license and permit from the Philippine
Overseas Employment Administration to do so, thereby causing
damage and prejudice to the aforesaid Macaria Toledo.
Contrary to law.[2]
The evidence for the prosecution, based on the testimony of
private respondent, Macaria Toledo, shows that sometime in
March, 1992, she met accused-appellant Darvin in the latters
residence at Dimasalang, Imus, Cavite, through the introduction of
their common friends, Florencio Jake Rivera and Leonila Rivera. In
said meeting, accused-appellant allegedly convinced Toledo that
by giving her P150,000.00, the latter can immediately leave for the
United States without any appearance before the U.S. embassy.
[3]
Thus, on April 13, 1992, Toledo gave Darvin the amount of
P150,000.00, as evidenced by a receipt stating that the amount of
P150,000.00 was for U.S. Visa and Air fare. [4] After receiving the
money, Darvin assured Toledo that she can leave within one
week. However, when after a week, there was no word from
Darvin, Toledo went to her residence to inquire about any
development, but could not find Darvin. Thereafter, on May 7,
1992, Toledo filed a complaint with the Bacoor Police Station
against Imelda Darvin. Upon further investigation, a certification
was issued by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration
(POEA) stating that Imelda Darvin is neither licensed nor
authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment.
[5]
Accused-appellant was then charged for estafa and illegal
recruitment by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Cavite.
Accused-appellant, on the other hand, testified that she used to
be connected with Dale Travel Agency and that in 1992, or
thereabouts, she was assisting individuals in securing passports,
visa, and airline tickets. She came to know Toledo through
Florencio Jake Rivera, Jr. and Leonila Rivera, alleging that Toledo
sought her help to secure a passport, US visa and airline tickets to
the States. She claims that she did not promise any employment
in the U.S. to Toledo. She, however, admits receiving the amount
of P150,000.00 from the latter on April 13, 1992 but contends that
it was used for necessary expenses of an intended trip to the
United States of Toledo and her friend, Florencio Rivera [6] as
follows: P45,000.00 for plane fare for one person; P1,500.00 for
passport, documentation and other incidental expenses for each
person; P20,000.00 for visa application cost for each person; and
P17,000.00 for services.[7] After receiving the money, she allegedly
told Toledo that the papers will be released within 45 days. She
likewise testified that she was able to secure Toledos passport on
April 20, 1992 and even set up a date for an interview with the US
embassy. Accused alleged that she was not engaged in illegal
recruitment but merely acted as a travel agent in assisting
individuals to secure passports and visa.
[1] Recruitment
Page 5 of 6
In its judgment rendered on June 17, 1993, the Bacoor, Cavite RTC
found accused-appellant guilty of the crime of simple illegal
recruitment but acquitted her of the crime of estafa. The
dispositive portion ofthe judgment reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused Imelda Darvin is
hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Simple Illegal Recruitment for having committed the prohibited
practice as defined by paragraph (b) of Article 34 and punished by
paragraph (c) of Article 39 of the Labor Code, as amended by PD
2018.
Accused Imelda Darvin is hereby ordered to suffer the prison term
of Four (4) years, as minimum, to Eight (8) years, as maximum;
and to pay the fine of P25,000.00.
Regarding her civil liability, she is hereby ordered to reimburse the
private complainant the sum of P150,000.00 and attorneys fees
of P10,000.00.
She is hereby acquitted of the crime of Estafa.
SO ORDERED.[8]
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial
court in toto, hence this petition.
Before this Court, accused-appellant assails the decision of the
trial and appellate courts in convicting her of the crime of simple
illegal recruitment. She contends that based on the evidence
presented by the prosecution, her guilt was not proven beyond
reasonable doubt.
We find the appeal impressed with merit.
Article 13 of the Labor Code, as amended, provides the definition
of recruitment and placement as:
x x x; b) any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting,
utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers, and includes referrals,
contract services, promising or advertising for employment. locally
or abroad, whether for profit or not: Provided , that any person or
entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee
employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in
recruitment and placement.
On the other hand, Article 38 of the Labor Code provides:
a) Any recruitment activities, including the prohibited practices
enumerated under Article 34 of this Code, to be undertaken by
non-licensees or non-holders of authority shall be deemed illegal
and punishable under Article 39 of this Code. The Ministry of
Labor and Employment or any law enforcement officer may
initiate complaints under this Article.
x x x x x x x x x.
Applied to the present case, to uphold the conviction of accused-
appellant, two elements need to be shown: (1) the person
charged with the crime must have undertaken recruitment
activities; and (2) the said person does not have a license or
authority to do so.[9]
In this case, private respondent, Macaria Toledo alleged that she
was offered a job in the United States as nursing aide[10] by
accused-appellant. In her direct examination, she testified as
follows:
Atty Alejandro:
Q : How did you come to know the accused?
Witness : I was introduced by my two friends. One of whom is my
best friend. That according to them, this accused has connections
and authorizations, that she can make people leave for abroad, sir.
Court : What connections?
LABOR 1
 Page 6 of 6

Witness : That she has connections with the Embassy and with as Florencio Rivera, and Leonila Rivera, when it had the
people whom she can approach regarding work abroad, your opportunity to do so. As it stands, the claim of private respondent
Honor. that accused-appellant promised her employment abroad is
uncorroborated. All these, taken collectively, cast reasonable
xxxxxxxxx doubt on the guilt of the accused.

Q : When you came to meet for the first time in Imus, Cavite, what
transpired in that meeting of yours?
A : When I came to her house, the accused convinced me that by
means of P150,000.00, I will be able to leave immediately without
any appearance to any embassy, non-appearance, Sir.
Q : When you mentioned non-appearance, as told to you by the
accused, precisely, what do you mean by that?
A : I was told by the accused that non-appearance, means without
working personally for my papers and through her efforts
considering that she is capacitated as according to her I will be
able to leave the country, Sir.
xxxxxxxxx
Atty. Alejandro : What transpired after the accused told you all
these things that you will be able to secure all the documents
without appearing to anybody or to any embassy and that you will
be able to work abroad?
Witness : She told me to get ready with my P150,000.00, that is if I
want to leave immediately, Sir.
Atty. Alejandro : When you mentioned kaagad, how many days or
week?
Witness : She said that if I will able to part with my P150,000.00. I
will be able to leave in just one week time, Sir.
x x x x x x x x x.[11]
The prosecution, as evidence, presented the certification issued
by the POEA that accused-appellant Imelda Darvin is not licensed
to recruit workers abroad.
This Court can hardly rely on the bare allegations of private
respondent that she was offered by accused-appellant
employment abroad, nor on mere presumptions and conjectures,
to convict the latter. No sufficient evidence was shown to sustain
the conviction, as the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to
establish that accused-appellant indeed engaged in recruitment
activities, thus committing the crime of illegal recruitment.
In criminal cases, the burden is on the prosecution to prove,
beyond reasonable doubt, the essential elements of the offense
with which the accused is charged; and if the proof fails to
establish any of the essential elements necessary to constitute a
crime, the defendant is entitled to an acquittal. Proof beyond
reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as,
excluding the possibility of error, produces absolute
certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof
which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. [14]
At best, the evidence proffered by the prosecution only goes so far
as to create a suspicion that accused-appellant probably
perpetrated the crime charged. But suspicion alone is insufficient,
the required quantum of evidence being proof beyond reasonable
doubt. When the Peoples evidence fail to indubitably prove the
accuseds authorship of the crime of which he stands accused,
then it is the Courts duty, and the accuseds right, to proclaim his
innocence. Acquittal, therefore, is in order.[15]
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED and the decision of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 15624 dated January 31,
1996, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Imelda
Darvin is hereby ACQUITTED on ground of reasonable
doubt. Accordingly, let the accused be immediately released from
her place of confinement unless there is reason to detain her
further for any other legal or valid cause. No pronouncement as to
costs.

It is not disputed that accused-appellant does not have a license SO ORDERED.

or authority to engage in recruitment activities. The pivotal issue
to be determined, therefore, is whether the accused-appellant
indeed engaged in recruitment activities, as defined under the
Labor Code. Applying the rule laid down in the case of People v.
Goce,[12] to prove that accused-appellant was engaged in
recruitment activities as to commit the crime of illegal
recruitment, it must be shown that the accused appellant gave
private respondent the distinct impression that she had the power
or ability to send the private respondent abroad for work such
that the latter was convinced to part with her money in order to
be so employed.

In this case, we find no sufficient evidence to prove that accused-

appellant offered a job to private respondent. It is not clear that
accused gave the impression that she was capable of providing the
private respondent work abroad. What is established, however, is
that the private respondent gave accused-
appellant P150,000.00. The claim of the accused that the
P150,000.00 was for payment of private respondents air fare and
US visa and other expenses cannot be ignored because the receipt
for the P150,000.00, which was presented by both parties during
the trial of the case, stated that it was for Air Fare and Visa to USA.
[13]
Had the amount been for something else in addition to air fare
and visa expenses, such as work placement abroad, the receipt
should have so stated.

By themselves, procuring a passport, airline tickets and foreign

visa for another individual, without more, can hardly qualify as
recruitment activities. Aside from the testimony of private
respondent, there is nothing to show that accused-appellant
engaged in recruitment activities. We also note that the
prosecution did not present the testimonies of witnesses who
could have corroborated the charge of illegal recruitment, such

[1] Recruitment LABOR 1